https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288515 A dismissal following the plaintiff's failure to proceed after an adjournment was treated as a default dismissal under Order IX, Rule 8 CPC, not as a dismissal under Order XVII, Rule 3. The plaintiff's pleader had stated that he had no instructions to proceed, so he could not be treated as continuing representation for the purpose of Order XVII. Restoration was justified because the affidavit showed efforts to produce witnesses and absence without deliberate default, and that version was not contradicted by any counter-affidavit. The refusal to restore the suit was set aside. en-us Wed, 14 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288515 A dismissal following the plaintiff's failure to proceed after an adjournment was treated as a default dismissal under Order IX, Rule 8 CPC, not as a dismissal under Order XVII, Rule 3. The plaintiff's pleader had stated that he had no instructions to proceed, so he could not be treated as continuing representation for the purpose of Order XVII. Restoration was justified because the affidavit showed efforts to produce witnesses and absence without deliberate default, and that version was not contradicted by any counter-affidavit. The refusal to restore the suit was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 14 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288515